TheRabidOgre's page

Thanks, there's some good advice here.

For the Poppet, well, I don't have Grand Bazaar or Impossible Lands so I didn't know about those things (and I only recently found out about the Archives). Poppet isn't really what I'm looking for (though it's a fascinating character concept), but that feat chain is interesting.

Right now I guess I'm not too worried about it if I'm going to have to tweak one or two things anyway.

As it is, one of the Sprite benefits is attacks counting as magical, but since I was thinking of playing Magus, that feature is largely redundant so I don't think I should worry too much about taking advantage of too many benefits.

I have a problem with coming up with character ideas and then having trouble figuring out how to get them to be properly represented by the rules.

Most recently, I came back around to wanting to make a fairy character. At first my plan was to make a sprite from the Lost Omens Ancestry Guide, but by the time I got around to this, my idea was less "Tiny (potentially) winged fairy" and more "Small wingless fairy". Now, that's absolutely possible. I just have to pick the Pixie heritage (and the wings are optional feats anyway).

It just feels like a waste to use my Heritage choice on having a more normal size rather than an actually interesting feature (especially when Versatile Heritages are out there).

So I looked around a bit and realized that Pathfinder's gnomes are actually really close to what I wanted right from the Core, they even have some Heritages and Feats that really fit the direction I wanted to go in.

I was almost ready to just play a gnome, but call it a sprite/fairy and change the Traits from Gnome and Humanoid to Fey and Sprite. But then I realized that there actually is already an avenue for this as well. The Fey-Touched gnome Heritage makes you truly a fey and grants you the Fey trait.

Problem solved, right?

Unfortunately, I really, really liked the sound of Chameleon gnome, which is of course mutually exclusive with Fey-Touched gnome.

In the end it's a pretty small thing. I'm sure a lot of tables out there would let me reflavor these things. One time, though, I got called a min-maxer for just wanting to make sure that my character wouldn't be doing something I imagined them to do that technically is a feat somewhere but not one I'd have access to.

Does this ever happen to anyone else?

This is a fascinating concept. Deep Rock Galactic's design is great for replayability. I can't try this out right now, but I'm interested to see how this will turn out.

Now that I think about it, it's sort of funny that World of Warcraft actually has a bit of an in-universe version of the question brought up in the Shaman thread.

The playable Shaman class in World of Warcraft had several cultures from different planets smashed together in order to create a fully featured RPG class out of a handful of RTS units.

Nowadays the culture umbrella has become more intentional (like with what I just said about Kul Tiran tidesages being represented in part by Shaman), but for the longest time it was ostensibly the orc's cultural practice with troll culture glued onto it. Totems, for instance, were not a shaman thing until World of Warcraft.

One last comparison I will make, is to the Monks in World of Warcraft.

To quickly summarize, there are two kinds of classes in World of Warcraft, base classes and hero classes. The hero classes start at a higher level and they tend to have very specific lore. Death Knights are revenants specifically resurrected to be a part of the Lich King's army. Demon Hunters are warriors specifically trained by Illidan through a particular process.

Otherwise, the base classes are generic archetypes that you see in all in-game cultures. Gilnean druids are Harvest-witches, Kul Tiran shaman are Tidesages, but they still fit under the umbrella of the classes named for the night elf druids and orc shaman.

All except one: the Monk.

For some reason, all playable Monks are trained by the Pandaren, no exception. Unarmed, martial artists (sometimes even called Monks) existed in other cultures prior to the introduction of Pandaria, but as a playable class they are explicitly trained by the Pandaren, no matter what race you are playing.

Again, I'm fine with the archetype and its name. I just think it's weird for one and only one class to have a cultural assumption that no other class has. It's both unfair to any other culture that might have a similar tradition, and to the culture it's implicitly making distinct from everyone else.

TheRabidOgre wrote:

The problem is that it treats Chinese culture not as a culture you might have yourself and thus see the whole game through the lens of, but as something special to a specific and singular class.

That I see it repeated over and over in asian media makes it seem fine to me. Seriously, almost every isekai story these days has a monk class.

The interesting thing about that is how much modern Japanese fantasy fiction traces its roots back to Wizardry, Ultima, and D&D through games like Dragon Quest. The original Final Fantasy had Beholders (it was even a legal problem) and what was essentially Vancian Magic! Culture is weird when you really start delving into it. ;P

Maybe I'm making this seem like more of a big deal than I think it is.

I do think these Final Fantasy and isekai stories handle it a bit better still, though. Like I said before, Final Fantasy treats Monk more of a universal unarmed archetype that might be flavored differently depending on the game.

I'm not asking for a major change. I'm fine with the name Monk. I'm fine with art showing Shaolin Monk-looking guys. I just think it shouldn't be the only thing associated with the class, and maybe showing a little more Tian Xia elsewhere would help.

I don't believe Pathfinder is meant to be a historical game though. It's high fantasy. People grew up with these archetypes through lots of media, especially JRPGs, like Final Fantasy.

I mean, that's a big reason why I'm critiquing this though.

That we're just okay with "Chinese hero" being implicitly distinct from all other classes just because it's tradition.

I'm not saying the archetype in general is a problem. I absolutely think an unarmed/martial artist archetype should exist. I'm not saying there shouldn't be Chinese or Wuxia representation. If anything we might need more options in classes to match certain cultural expectations.

The problem is that it treats Chinese culture not as a culture you might have yourself and thus see the whole game through the lens of, but as something special to a specific and singular class.

Part of the issue with the Monk is that there is too little respect for HEMA and the training it took to be a skilled knight. People forget that their training started as children with the page, to squire, to knight progression. The monk really shouldn't look all that special next to what a European knight or fencer can do.

This is a good point of comparison.

"I trained my whole life to be this legendary youxia" shouldn't force you into a different class than someone who says "I trained my whole life to be this legendary knight" just because they aren't the same culture. Even Summoner, a class that isn't exactly a generic archetype, is one I've seen people say both "hey, it's like Dragonback!" and "hey, it's like JoJo's Bizarre Adventure!" You can't do that with Monk.

When I say I want Monk to not be "the Asian class" I'm not arguing against Chinese or Wuxia representation. What I'm trying to say is almost the opposite. That I feel it's "othering" to have the Wuxia class be a distinct class, when anyone should be able to apply their culture to any class.

For what it's worth, I think the Barbarian should've been renamed the Berserker in the edition switch, and I hope they can take that leap in an eventual PF3.

It's a little funny how little Shaman talk this thread has had :p

I forgot a lot of other games do use Berserker. Now, like the discussion on the Shaman thread, you could debate whether it matters that the word very specifically originates from a specific culture, but at least it's not a negative term and the game class is actually pretty close to what survives of the real concept.

On the point of barbarian, the word barbarian was a general-purpose word for foreigner in classical greek, it was derogatory yes but it was applied to literally everyone who did not speak greek from slavs to Persians to Egyptians to Berbers to Romans, and as such didn't really have any stereotype associated with it implicitly other than a general sense of superiority and being more cultured than such people.

I guess I did get a bit carried away with that one, but that's also why I didn't really elaborate more. I just think it's a bit weird that fantasy has turned "big dumb angry guy that don't live in cities" into a thing. Mostly I think I just wanted to broach varied topics rather than just Shaman or, in my case, just Monk.

I can't dog into this, but this is a reason why I had argued against a ninja class in a previous thread. To wit, why should there be two separate classes for 'Rogue' and 'Asian Rogue'?

That's at the crux of it for me.

I see the current Monk as the "Asian Monk" to what could be just "Monk."

With all the talk about Wuxia, let me put it another way. If you wanted to play a full Wuxia campaign, why is Monk the "Wuxia Class?" Shouldn't all classes have equal potential to be Wuxia? Wuxia has a wide breadth of archetypes like anything else, even if they're all portrayed in a consistent style.

All the talk about weapons really highlights this for me. As far as I'm concerned, Monks shouldn't be using those weapons at all. If you want a Wuxia character with a spear, you should play a class like Fighter and use a Wuxia theme.

"Unarmed class" is an archetype on its own, one that a lot of games (including video games) pass over despite being recognizable and popular. For the most part (especially with Ki spells being optional) that is technically what Monk is, but for some reason it and, maybe most importantly, it alone has the Wuxia baggage glued to it.

Final Fantasy is a good comparison to make, because Final Fantasy is closer to what I'm looking for. Throughout the franchise, the Final Fantasy Monk has been taken in different directions. It might have different influences depending on the game, but at its core it is the "unarmed class." Sometimes it's more Wuxia. Sometimes it's just a straight up brawler. There's a core concept that can be flavored by different cultures.

What I am looking for is for Monk to be unflavored. You can flavor it with Wuxia, but you could flavor it with something else, and if you want another class to be Wuxia, you can flavor them that way.

Of course, that thread also convinced me there's a desire for a currently unmet niche that is modelled somewhat after the FFXIV Magic using deceptive spy-warrior class (and or Naruto, the other big wizard-with-shuriken inspiration).

There is definitely going to be a cultural bias even in basic things like Fighter. For instance, a controversial topic (over in D&D at least) is whether or not non-magical martial characters should be capable of things like swinging their sword so powerfully and so precisely that they can create projectiles of razor-sharp wind. In Japanese works, this is pretty common as a mark of great skill rather than magic. In the West, this is often seen as "too anime."

Nevertheless, I feel Pathfinder does an overall good job of making the core classes relatively basic with the ability to flavor them through your build. Whether or not it's actually an option in-game right now, you easily could make those Blade Beams a set of feats for Fighter and perfectly fulfill the fantasy of your character having trained to that level in a campaign where you expect that sort of thing and not feel like an afterthought.

Monk, on the other hand, has an intentional cultural flavor by default. You don't get to choose an alternative through builds, you can only layer something on top. And if you do want that cultural touchstone, it's all bundled into one class.

As for a name, literally just call it Wuxia and be done.

It's Chinese for "martial hero". And you can't get much more on the nose, both from looking at the translation and from history and context attached to the class.

This is my point. Why can every other culture use Fighter (or any other martial class) as their martial hero, but if you're Chinese there's a different class for you?

Right now probably isn't a good time to be changing things like that, yeah. Lots of other things are going on and it won't matter if you make things better if circumstances sabotage the effort or simply no one's around to care.

I just thought it's still worth keeping in mind since it's definitely in mind for new things.

Incidentally, I don't remember if I ever actually did it, but I was going to bring these things up during the OneDnD playtest because OneDnD was at least pretending to have a goal of cleaning up some outdated legacy elements.

I decided to bring it here in part because that Shaman thread convinced me this forum could be civil about it. I'm no good at trying to make a point if people are fighting back. XP

Okay yeah, those are both pretty close.

If we got a 2E Shifter I'd love to see something more dedicated to it, but those two options are close to what I was trying to find. Thanks!

I guess my question is: are there any alternatives?

Michiru transforms, but each transformation is just a different hybrid form. She gains aspects of different animals depending on the situation, but she remains humanoid.

I didn't get the idea from her, but I thought she'd be an easy way to explain it.

I guess another way to put it is, is there a way to basically have multiple "were" forms rather than having animal forms?

A discussion on the Shaman thread about whether you can or should put differing cultures under one umbrella, especially when that umbrella is named for one culture and not the others, made me want to make a thread dedicated to that sort of question, because I see it elsewhere in the game (largely in places that were inherited from previous roleplaying games).

For instance, a class that's bothered me for a long time is Monk. Most of the Core Classes are treated as archetypes. Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. These classes are about broad ideas. You're good with weapons, you're sneaky, you have magic.

Monk, however, isn't "unarmed fighter" or even just "martial artist". They are "the Asian class". They may be core now , but the "foreign" baggage from their D&D origins still remains. Perhaps the most direct proof of this is their "Ki Spells". Culturally speaking, I want to know why Ki is specific to Monks, other than because they're "the Asian class." For example, would not a Fighter from Minkai say that they have Ki and manage it carefully in combat?

Ultimately I think the question is: should classes be specific or generic?

Another game might have a Samurai class and infuse a lot of Japanese culture into it. Should a Samurai just be a Fighter instead? Should Fighter still have access to culture-specific concepts, like managing Ki?

Incidentally, the Monk class overall, including the art, has a very stereotypical Shaolin Monk feel to it, but uses the word Ki rather than Qi/Chi. That brings the umbrella question back.

I don't mean for this thread to just be about Monk though. I passed on them earlier because the class concepts are fairly archetypal, but the names can be argued. The word Barbarian originated as a slur and the class is based around taking the slur literally.

I've seen a lot of people dismiss Druid, but they really have nothing to do with their real world counterparts and I've seen that lead to a lot of weird confusion and misrepresentation in the modern day because of how pervasive the fantasy druid is in pop culture. Should the class have more to do with historical druids, should the name be changed?

The Shaman question is an important one, but it's also something I think we should be consistent about.

I don't expect to be playing anytime soon, but I thought others might be interested in the answer.

Is it possible to make a character like Michiru from Brand New Animal?

At first I thought the answer would be yes. The Beastkin heritage from the Lost Omens Ancestry guide handles the everyday element of the character (including a tendency for the hybrid form to be the default).

However, the more I looked, the more I kept running into the same problem: all the animal-themed abilities eventually assume full animal forms.

Druid's Wild Shape is all about becoming an animal. I thought about Barbarian, but when I looked there the higher forms of their animal instinct also have you turn into an animal.

The Beastkin heritage itself isn't much better. While you can obviously skip it, one of the highest feats is a full animal form. The only feat that changes the hybrid form makes it permanently larger rather than giving you more hybrid choices.

Even when I looked at people speculating about a 2E version of a Shifter class people were assuming an ability to change between various full animal forms.

Is there a way to have a varied hybrid shifting character without eventually just turning into the actual animal?

There are a lot of important ethical questions about the way we implement AI, but the technology itself is here and it's getting better at a fast pace.

I think the potential for AI is amazing for roleplaying games. Getting a good GM is hard and a huge obstacle to playing TTRPGs. We have a lot of people interested in playing but no one interested in GMing. It's one of the reasons I've still only played a handful of sessions of TTRPGs my whole life.

The ability to just have a DM, at will, would be huge. I might finally be able to play TTRPGs.

Big, hulking ancestries (if not large, at least just feat-supported as bigger than average)

I'm emphasizing this because I think it's a really good point.

D&D5E making centaurs Medium is apparently controversial, but I will staunchly defend the choice. Here's the thing, while a centaur's whole body might be large (though that can vary massively depending on the breed of horse you're using for reference) every practical way they interact with the world is based on their "human" half.

They wield human-sized weapons and have human-length arms. In most situations they are effectively a human that simply can never dismount their horse.

The fact that they should be easier to hit and their hind legs are far from their front are details on top of that. It just makes more sense to me to address those through Ancestry features rather than burdening them with a whole bunch of baggage that shouldn't apply to them just on a technicality.

However, even for other Ancestries with less obvious contrast, I feel there's plenty of wiggle room in the assumption of Medium Size category for Ancestries that are technically larger but have the relevant elements addressed on an Ancestry-basis rather than lumping everyone together.

Thus, to the original topic:
I want centaur. For me, they're symbolic of both fantasy and of something that TTRPGs can do that video games have a much harder time doing.

I campaign for ogres elsewhere. I'm not in need of it the same here because they don't have the same place in lore, but I will always take them.

I can't imagine the D&D changes will matter too much to Pathfinder, especially if it's just a 5.5. If it's more significant, and ends up being more like a 6E even if they don't call it that, then it could be a big deal for Pathfinder, but I'd need to know a lot more before I started guessing in what fashion. As many have said, name recognition and brand loyalty are huge things to overcome.

At the moment I'm mostly expecting character creation stuff for 5.5, because that's what they've been fiddling with. I'd put money on no more alignments and changing the terminology for races. I really hope they go with Pathfinder's Ancestry+Heritage system, because not only do I think the terminology sounds natural, but the mechanical consequences it has for things like Versatile Heritages also feel super organic. It's probably my favorite part of Pathfinder 2E. I can't imagine doing it a better way, but I've certainly seen worse, and I hope they don't mess it up just because they don't want to look like they're copying their competitor (I don't think that would help Pathfinder, just hurt the industry).

Other than that, they'll probably do the custom Ability Score Increases thing, but I'm not sure they'll commit to the "race is entirely roleplayed and not mechanical at all" thing they asked about in surveys. I think for the average player that will actually backfire when it comes to flavor and engagement. If they did, that's the sort of thing I think could suddenly boost up Pathfinder.

I liked Slide Casting from the playtest. It looks like the best part was moved to Laughing Shadow's Conflux Spell, though still as a relative beginner I'm not sure how similar they are in the long run. I don't know how to describe it, but that ability conjures specific images in my head that really capture my imagination. It's not something I immediately need in a mystic knight class, but it works together with one beautifully.

I like all the Hybrid Studies in their own ways and like the breadth they cover. I'm always glad to see shields getting to defend in amazing ways, and Sparkling Targe captures that. I think my main honorable mention though would have to be Twisting Tree. While the spellsword element is what I was looking forward to in the class, I have a soft spot for staves being a serious part of a magician's arsenal and appreciate the ability to make them more than just a focus here.

Reading this made me realize I've seen this before. Unfortunately, I think it's part of a sort of inevitable drift that leads from all of these things becoming more mainstream.

When wizards and magic are rare, it's innately mysterious and easy to portray as potentially dangerous. The more that gets popular, the more that escalates to the point where you have settings full of wizards, or settings where every adventurer is a magic user of some kind, then magic can't really be mysterious or inherently dangerous anymore.

However, there's still a clear appeal for that level of mystery and danger, so a new layer is created, but since it's essentially recreating the original form of the thing it's based on, there's a lot of overlap and makes that really muddy.

This happened to Warcraft as well. Wizards used to be looked on with a lot of suspicion. It was a trait of paladins that they were prejudiced against wizards, because meddling with magic was often a dangerous affair. The original excuse for the demons invading was wizards using arcane magic essentially serving as a beacon that drew them in.

Since the cosmology has been significantly more codified and elaborated on, now, arcane magic is simply the building blocks of the material realm and it's 100% safe and normal and innocuous. Demonic "fel" magic took over as the dangerous, risky kind, and then Lovecraftian void magic, but both of those have already undergone a lot of "only as evil as you use it" sort of situations as they begun to be proliferated to players and the universe is expanded to show that every realm and source of power has its good and bad sides.

It certainly leads to some awkward middle ground. In theory I like the idea of having a safer form of magic that doesn't carry a bunch of ambiguous baggage along with something more risky and mysterious, but keeping them both interesting is a bit difficult as a result.

I might have been bothered by that compromise (considering wings are sort of an iconic element and it feels bad to have to earn basic elements of your ancestry's archetype), but I found more details elsewhere and I think it works out pretty well.

When I think about it, the limited movement that you can choose at Level 1 is mostly the limit of what you tend to see fairies using their wings for in fiction anyway. The ability to gain better flying later is just a bonus.

I might pick up this book, but I'd like to find a campaign to play any of these characters in first.

Thanks, that's interesting. I don't follow RPGs too closely so I don't know if it's been a thing before, but I know when I've tried to make homebrew fairy races they've been completely taken apart as unbalanced by anyone I've showed them to. Interesting to see them try this.

I'm curious about the Sprite race. Are they tiny flying fairies? If so, are they still balanced as a normal party member?

I just found out about the playtest, got the PDF, looked at Summoner, and (after the terminology itself reminding me of Final Fantasy 9) my mind immediately thought of Stands and I came to this forum curious as to whether I wasn't alone. Yes, the general idea of having some sort of spirit bound to you and assisting you is not rare, but there's something particular about Stands that, in my experience, is fairly rare (with Persona being one of the only things I know that clearly utilizes it) and the Summoner class hit that (at least the early Part 3 style, obviously the increasing variation later on isn't really possible to turn into a single class in any game) in an immediately exciting and "grokkable" way for me. If the class was like that before I don't know, my exposure to Pathfinder 1E is very limited.

At the same time, the Summoner does this in a general enough manner, using evocative fantasy concepts that fit right into Pathfinder's class patterns, that I think it's really neat. If the reference is intentional (and I have no idea if it actually is), it doesn't feel out of place, and that's great. I would feel embarrassed if it felt like it was shoehorned in.

I came here in part to suggest an Eidolon type that was some sort of manifestation of your inner will (like the Barbarian's Fury Instinct is said to come from themselves instead of a greater power) as a fun nod because I still didn't think it would feel out of place considering that precedent.

What I did not expect was to come here and feel miserable. I don't know if it's better to report this somewhere than say it out in the open, but voicing the concern can bring positive awareness. This thread had a mostly innocuous title and a totally neutral first post, but somehow this became a judge on people's character. It feels really horrible to be a fan of something and not even be able to bring it up in a fair context without somehow starting a flame war. I almost didn't click this thread because I had a feeling this would happen and it's sad to be vindicated about that.

I'm not really fond of how literally catfolk seems to be taken. Also, a lot of the art in the APG felt unfinished to me and I found that a bit disappointing.

There's still plenty of great artwork, I like most of the Archetype stuff, and it gets the point across fairly well.

I've only really skimmed it once so far. Nothing super jumped out at me, but there's a lot of stuff I like. The new ancestries are nice, the versatile heritage idea and how it's used here is great, the new classes seem fun, and it was fun to look at the new Archetypes.

If I had to pick one favorite, it would probably be the Oracle curses. They're dripping with so much flavor it makes me want to play one, even though I don't know if I care for the class itself.

It definitely depends on the sort of players you have and what everyone wants out of it, but this seems like a sort of "reality is unrealistic" situation to me.

As someone who very much values roleplaying and immersion, but is fairly quiet and passive by nature, I'm barely going to say anything at the table except what's necessary for my actions unless prompted.

Forcing me to actually consider what the character is thinking and voicing that out loud actually gets me to imagine the scenario more fully, and gives everyone else at the table some context for my character at all (my characters aren't usually supposed to be as quiet as me, but they will be if I'm not prompted to do otherwise, which skews the perception), than not doing so.

This is one of the reasons I made a couple of points about the core ancestry selection back during the Playtest.

Frankly, I think the "traditional core race" selection is outdated and the entire thing should be rethought.

Elves, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes don't just come from a specific origin of fantasy races, they come from a very different cultural context, often closer to their original mythological origins. Mythologically speaking, across the world, good things tend to be roughly in the image of humans, and anything that's not is usually bad, or at least tricky and unknowable.

Nowadays, what can be considered sympathetic, or identified with enough to want to play, has expanded massively. I don't think there's anything that you can't find a significant fandom in the modern day.

The idea of having a small set of core ancestries still makes sense (I'll get into that a bit later), but it seems very narrow by modern standards. Adding goblins was a step in the right direction, but it almost calls more attention to how outdated the rest of the concept is. At the very least, a "beast ancestry" should also be core, and I'm convinced that more of the classics should be removed.

Now, I get that setting really matters. It's hard to tell a compelling story when literally anything goes. Not every campaign is going to be able to reasonably accept any ancestry, and they shouldn't be expected to. That said, core ancestries aren't necessarily exempt from this (like if you want to do one of those "through the eyes of monsters" campaigns).

That's part of the problem though. The core setting should also evolve based on these changing expectations.

In the end, people are going to want to play what they want, as obvious as that sounds. Asking someone to play a character they don't want to play, just to unlock a character they do, is silly, no matter how theoretically quickly they can do so (and 20 sessions sounds like a lot when I've barely gotten more than 3 or 4 sessions in of any tabletop game ever).

There's no entitlement there. No player is under any obligation to play a game to begin with. If they can't play what they want, then they have no reason to join the campaign to begin with.

I just think that a related issue is the tradition of the core ancestries to begin with. It hasn't been brought up to modern standards and modern archetypes. When was the last time you saw a halfling outside of a tabletop game? A gnome? In comparison, when was the last time you saw a heroic orc? A cat person? Which of them is going to be more likely to be someone's touchstone when they're getting into the game?

I had the same problem. I'll admit I haven't done a thorough reading yet, but I only picked up that Level 1-only Heritage feats existed as a distinct type of Ancestry Feat while reading threads about the Ancestry.

The idea of Heritage feats being a more elaborate thing that essentially defines Subrace instead isn't a bad idea, and in such a case I think they would be made more obvious.

I'll also put my hat in that I don't think that the half-races being done this way is innately bad. In theory, I think it makes a lot of sense, and makes room for more distinct races without necessarily diminishing traditional ones. The problem is that the Ancestry Feat system to begin with is a little lackluster.

I'm definitely in favor of most biological features being Level 1 and the rest being more culturally themed. I say most, because I do think there is some room for, especially on more unusual races, biological features that are trained for a certain use or an adaptation they gain later on.

I'm not a particular fan of orcs or goblins, and I actually have some reasons I could go into detail about how I feel they've been diluted in their tendency to be playable races nowadays.

But at the same time, that's part of the reason I'd certainly argue for both being playable. Orcs and goblins have historically been related, but they've not only diverged a lot in popular culture, they've both gained a lot of their own following.

Orcs are proud warriors and goblins are mischievous knaves. I'll admit I don't know the details in Golarion, but I'd definitely support orcs as long as it wasn't at the cost of goblins.

For Catfolk and Tengu, I'd certainly advocate for at least one humanoid "beast race" slot in the core, because it's a major fantasy archetype as well. It's a bit of a tangent, but the D&D heritage kinda feels weird to me nowadays, having dwarf, halfling, and gnome core, while often skipping over any beast race or even orcs. No offense to those races, but I think the core races should show a greater variety, which is part of my point with the centaur.

Back to centaur, I had written up my own entry before that reimagined centaur somewhat based around what I felt was a bit of logic about their shape. The intent was to not stray too far from the familiar, while also giving them a true identity. I don't know what they're like in Golarion, but everyone seems to have their own spin on them anyway. It was written for D&D though, so the rules obviously won't apply here.

Centaur
Appearing half-human and half-horse, the origins of centaurs are oft speculated upon. Are they descended from a cursed tribe of humans, or are their feral features proof of a natural history? Regardless, their awkward forms have resulted in cultures revolving around cooperation and a nomadic lifestyle.

Man and Beast
Centaur appearances can vary by region, but they generally stand about a foot taller than the average human of their sex, with their equine body extending about eight feet back. The combined body weighs a significant amount compared to other races of their height, with a large range from 750 to 1200 pounds. While their upper body is humanoid, it often carries animalistic features as well, such as horse-like ears, a flat nose, or a hairy mane extending down their spine.

Their skin tones can range about as widely as humans, but the most common are tanned or olive skin colors. The hair on their upper body also has human ranges, with black and brown being the most common. Their tails and manes will match this color. Their equine body can have fur colors as widely as horses, with blacks, browns, and mottled looks common.

Spirit of Cooperation
While a centaur can mostly take care of themselves in an isolated setting, their large bodies make many things extremely awkward. Simple things like dressing themselves, or crucial things like being able to take care of their back hooves, are essentially impossible without assistance. This has led to centaurs almost universally developing a culture of cooperation. Most centaurs will quickly offer assistance to someone in need. Occasionally, a tribe will be distrustful or aggressive to outsiders, but even they will see their tribe as a larger part of themselves.

Even with cooperation, however, centaurs place less emphasis on things that aren't necessary and are made harder by their bodies. For instance, centaurs usually forgo elaborate dress unless they're visiting a culture that expects such things, and armor is rare. Centaur have found that it's much easier to simply retreat to a new home than it is to armor their forces up enough to properly protect themselves against an army that can do it in a fraction of the time.

The nomadic nature of centaurs means that they easily pick up new ideas. While each tribe tends to have a core set of traditions, they will pick up a variety of different styles of dress, languages, and beliefs. Not only will they combine them in a unique way, it leads to them coming to a less quick judgment of others.

Across the Open Plains
Centaurs can be found in a wide variety of locations due to their nomadic nature, but they tend to prefer open lands over rough or dense terrain. They will tend to build easy to dismantle camps in an open area where they can see for miles and easily outrun any potential enemies, then pack the camps up and sling them over their equine backs when they are ready to move on. Centaurs generally make their living hunting, since they are extremely fast and are trained to use bows from birth.

When found in other communities, centaur are often farmers, or other jobs that can take advantage of their size and strength. Many armies try to recruit at least one squad of centaur archers, since they generally come with the level of life-long training that mounted archers usually demand.

Nomads and Friends
Every day is already an adventure for most centaur, so the transition to a full-time adventurer is easy. The bonds of cooperation built within tribes mean that few leave voluntarily, but when they do join an adventuring group, they can be one of the most loyal members a party can ask for.

Centaur Names
Centaur names have a moderate amount of variety by region, but the practices tend to be the same. A child is given a name by their parents, while a second name, that of the tribe, is added when interacting with outsiders. In the event that the centaur has lost their tribe, they might take on the name of something else they associate with, such as a city, a guild, or another family.

Centaur Traits
Your character has certain traits that centaur have developed together throughout history.

Ability Score Increase. Your Constitution score increases by 1.
Age. Centaurs are born more physically mature than humans, but otherwise are seen as adults around the same time. Their lifespans tend to be a bit shorter than humans.
Alignment. The spirit of cooperation innate to centaurs has them tend toward lawful alignments. Even if it's a culture they're unfamiliar with, they will tend to respect their beliefs and laws as long as they are there. Similarly, they are usually good and treat others with the respect they would give their tribe, as they know how hard things can be when no one is around.
Size. Centaur often stand 7-8 feet tall, and their bodies extend 8 or more feet behind them. Your size is Medium.
Speed. Your base walking speed is 40 feet.
Quadruped. While your upper body is humanoid, the rest of your body is quite different from the average race's, and grants these extra effects:
Long Body: You take up a space that is 5 by 10 feet.
Beast of Burden: Your carrying capacity is 30 times your Strength score, and your Push, Lift, and Drag is equal to your carrying capacity.
Equine: You count as Large when determining whether you can mount a creature or a creature can mount you.
Barding: You can equip barding-style armor, which increases the AC of a given armor by +2. This costs four times as much as the base version of the armor and weighs twice as much. You can not don or doff barding without assistance.

Centaur Weapon Training. You have proficiency with the shortbow and longbow.
Languages. You can speak, read, and write Common, and one extra language of your choice. Centaurs have found that it's much easier to pick up a local language and maximize their ability to communicate, than to focus one of their own.
Subrace. The nomadic nature of centaurs have led different tribes to be scattered in some distinct locations. This regional separation has led to the development of at least three major groups of centaurs: coursers, draughts, and wild.

Courser
As a courser, you are as lithe as a centaur can get. You are much slimmer and more streamlined than the average centaur, and as a result are much lighter and faster.

Ability Score Increase. Your Dexterity score increases by 2.
Light on your Hooves. Your base walking speed increases to 45 feet, and you can choose to use your Dexterity when making long jumps.
Energetic. You have Proficiency in the Athletics skill.

Draught
Draughts are big. While not necessarily taller than the average centaur, they are built much thicker, making their upper bodies more resemble a large dwarf than a human. Adapted to a harsher terrain, the Draughts are tough, and prefer to fight up close and personal rather than using bows.

Ability Score Increase. Your Constitution score increases by 1.
Sturdy. Your speed is not reduced by wearing heavy armor.
Charge. When you perform a dash action, you can make an attack as a bonus action.

Wild
While most centaurs are friendly with their neighbors, this is not universal. In some regions, centaurs are known for little more than barbarism. Wild centaurs are those who have decided to lift up their own tribe at the expense of others. To them, cooperation is only within the tribe, and anything outside of it can be seen as a resource for the tribe. While not necessarily evil, the Wild centaurs are the one group of centaur that will certainly cross that line. Otherwise, they will also tend to be more chaotic or neutral than other centaurs. While they will still tend to be good to their tribe and follows its laws, there is no guarantee that it will extend beyond that.

Wild centaur also tend to appear more feral than other centaurs and have thick body hair on their upper torsos. Some have even been known to have small horns growing from their heads.

Ability Score Increase. Your Strength score is increased by 2.
Thick Hide. You gain a +1 bonus to AC.
Bestial. You have proficiency in the Intimidate skill.

Random Height and Weight

Courser:
Base Height: 5'6"
Height Modifier: +2d8Base Weight: 600 lb.
Weight Modifier: x (2d6) lb.

Draught:
Base Height: 5'8"
Height Modifier: +3d8Base Weight: 800 lb.
Weight Modifier: x (2d8) lb.

Wild:
Base Height: 5'6"
Height Modifier: +3d8Base Weight: 600 lb.
Weight Modifier: x (2d8) lb.

I think the Ancestry Feat system could really open up some options with this idea, as I cut out a lot of logical elements of what would make a centaur playable for the sake of smoother rules, but some of those things could be reintroduced in an optional fashion.It doesn't really have to be centaur though, as long as the general criteria fits.

The OP certainly convinced me. I think not having a bonus or penalty is perfect.

The idea that, once you get to know them, goblins can be very endearing, definitely feels like an element of charisma.

On the other hand, having everyone distrust them until they know them, and them being described as followers rather than leaders, are the opposite of charisma.

Even the point about prejudice not being their problem only matters so much. You'd end up with a penalty against someone who is that prejudiced against you anyway, and if that includes everyone in the world except your companions, you might as well never have the bonus.

The plus charisma thing does feel a bit meta. Goblin antics are popular and fairly memetic in the various settings in which they're portrayed that way. I've laughed at my share, and I wouldn't typically consider myself a goblin fan. But it's a lot harder to laugh at someone who gets into potentially fatal mischief and accidentally makes things explode all the time when you live in a universe where you have to worry about being within range.

I'm not too keen on the balance between physical and mental stat bonuses either. That goes along with my point in my thread about the loss of fantasy. If the stats are balanced at the cost of the game mechanics blatantly contradicting the lore, then what's the point? It reminds me a lot of the issues a lot of people have with the ancestral feats, which lead to strange lore questions due to the contradiction between the mechanic and the character's background.

Like I said over there, I'm not saying they should be flippant about balance, but keeping the magic is more important to me than a meta rule about which stat bonuses can be given out.

I want to start this off by saying I like the line up of core races. For the most part, they're traditional, and squeezing goblin in there really works with how widespread they've become in many popular settings. Even with half-elves and half-orcs, I appreciate the idea even if there's some obvious controversy about the execution.

I feel a glaring omission though. It's something that other major fantasy roleplaying games don't have either, but it's something that I think they're all missing.

I often see concerns that RPGs aren't RPGs anymore, with references to streamlined or simplified mechanics. I think it might be the wrong way to look at it, though. It's not that certain mechanics aren't falling by the wayside, but it's happening because mechanical balance has taken priority over everything.

I've always been told that tabletop RPGs are superior to video game RPGs because tabletop RPGs are only limited by your imagination. In recent times, however, I feel like it's only been true as a technicality. Rules are becoming more 'balanced' at the cost of flavor, and many popular sanctioned events heavily limit options.

A fairly basic suggestion I have is simply to add one particular core race: Centaur

Why centaur? They're a familiar, classic fantasy race with roots in mythology, that aren't too monstrous, but aren't in a human shape.

Why does the game need that? To symbolize a commitment to what makes fantasy special, a willingness to sometimes make unusual rules for something fantastical as part of the core identity of the game.

I don't mean to say that rules or balance don't matter, but that imagination does. The Kasatha in Starfinder impressed me by being a core race with four arms, and I want to see that idea in Pathfinder as well.

Things like centaurs and merfolk used to be symbolic of fantasy, and I just hate seeing them increasingly marginalized because playable races get the most spotlight, and it's easiest to make rules for another race with one head, two arms, two legs, and otherwise human shape.

I'm new to this whole thing (I just found out about the playtest, and I've never played Pathfinder before, though I have looked into it), and I had a very similar reaction when looking through the book.

I was skimming through the ancestries, then hit this human ethnicity section and I thought, "Only humans have ethnicities? That can't be right."

I'd definitely get behind that being moved to another section that has a map and covers all of the races. I wouldn't even need it to go into heavy detail (especially if page limit is a concern), but any sort of overview that explains more than just humans would go a long way for me.

Perhaps it could be in the Backgrounds section and use that as an excuse to recommend certain Backgrounds as part of the ethnicity descriptions.